248 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
Marci 29, 1894. 
At last—the Gooseberry and Ivy red spider has been named. Why 
Bryobia praetiosa instead of B. speciosa ? This changing of names is 
tantalising. But are the Ivy and Gooseberry red spider the same 
species? Surely there is a diflference between the Ivy red spider 
(B, speciosa), Gooseberry red spider (B, praetiosa), and Clover red spider 
(B. pratensis), or is the difference mere variation due to the host ? 
Alteration in colour has a great deal to do with that of aphides on 
different host plants, and this change has given rise to species ! Any¬ 
way, the confusion of names by scientists does not give cultivators 
confidence in their nomenclature. The names change, but the insects 
remain the same. They cannot be one thing at one time, something else 
at another, excent the egg, larvae, pupa, insect. But however much 
scientists may differ, cultivators will find the usual mixture of softsoap 
and sulphur, or of softsoap and petroleum, complete remedies for any of 
the red spider race. They are better and safer than Paris green or any 
poisonous mixture. 
Gooseberry and Currant scale (Lecanium ribis, FiteJi) is a decided 
hit—natural and well-executed figure of an old pest, hitherto without a 
clear definite identification, I have compared Miss Ormerod’s figures 
with living specimens (March 14th), and find them singularly accurate. 
Nothing kills these scaly pests better than compounds of softsoap and 
petroleum, nor prevents their attacks more decisively, as the creeping 
scale will not fix on a branch which has been recently coated with a 
petroleum emulsion. 
The next chapter is on a beneficial insect, feeding on red spider. 
Though I yield to no one in admitting the usefulness of the insects 
preying on the destructive of their class, I do not see how they are to be 
protected, for 1 find that what will kill aphides destroys the larvae of 
ladybirds feeding upon them ; indeed, it is better not to have one of 
either in a garden for the aphides mean ruin to the growths they infest, 
and the ladybirds are perfect pests when fruit is ripening, for they have 
a sweet tooth—like ants, earwigs, and woodlice. Miss Ormerod justly 
alludes to the matter of preserving friendly insects as one of “ fancy ; ” 
and one of her correspondents clenches the argument—“ the wash we 
used was more successful in killing the larvm which prey on red spider 
than the spiders themselves.” 
Locusts (presumably imported) were sent to Miss Ormerod in 1893 
from two different localities in this country, and alive. I also have a 
specimen locust (!) captured on Vines, yet it is not a foreign, but native 
species—Tetrix campestris. The “report” gives figures and particulars 
of the Egyptian and American locusts, so that we are “ forewarned ” 
against, and shall know how to contend with an invasion by these 
devouring hosts should they make an attempt on our shores. 
Surface caterpillars (larvae of hart and dart moth) have not been 
inactive in 1893, but injured Turnips, Potatoes, and Mangolds more or 
less, chiefly in the south of England, yet it has been known to be a 
serious trouble in places much further north—to wit, Yorkshire. 
Slugworms receive particular attention. “ The damage done by 
these ugly brutes to fruit trees is very often immense ; especially is this 
the case during dry seasons. They are found on most species of Pyrus, 
Prunus, Cerasus. Rubus, and Amygdalus, as well as Crataegus, Quercus, 
and Betula.”— {Cmiicroii). Dusting the trees affected with quicklime 
soon settles these pests. 
In the next chapter, on pages 84-95, a mine of information on gall 
mites is sprung—rather several mines—from Vienna, America, and 
various places in this country. There is an excellent figure of the 
Pear-leaf gall mite (Phytoptus pyri) and an infested Pear leaf. The 
mite is at least one-third longer than any I have seen in England. This 
shows how mites are affected by environment. “ Sexually developed 
mites move about nimbly on the under side of the leaves. They are 
found throughout the whole year, from May onwards of various ages, 
and have many broods, so that multiplication continues uninterruptedly 
until the winterly season. They disperse themselves, both as larvrn and 
developed mites, in the leaf and flower buds of the one-year-old twigs, 
embedded in the felt-like layer of hairs on the inside of the outer bml 
scales.”—(Dr. E. L. Taschenberg, page 88.) 
Plum-leaf funnel-shaped galls, Phytoptus similis, Xalepa. This is 
lamentable, as everybody knew it as P. pruni, Am. The technical 
description aids little—surely farmers and gardeners are not expected to 
be acquainted with continental languages. The Black Currant bud gall, 
P. ribis, Westwood, is n>‘xt referred to—allusion made to the “ minute 
gold coloured round bodies or drops . . . recently brought forward and 
figured (in this country) as a form of gall caused by the same gall mite 
that forms the distorted bud gall. This I believe to be wholly inaccu¬ 
rate.” The gold coloured round bodies are shown in the Board of 
Agriculture Report on Insects and Fungi Injurious to Crops, 1892, 
plate vii., fig. 2, in colours, and are a faithful representation. I also 
gave illustrations of the blackening of Black Currant shoots and leaves 
by mites in the Journal of Horticulture, July 6th, 1893, page 11, which 
1 submit are strictly accurate — all from life. Miss Ormerod admits 
they are “ fluid drops.” If not “ little globules of moisture ” caused by 
mites, what are they the result of ? And how comes it that these gold 
coloured bodies are only found on growths infested with Phytopti / 
Daddy longlegs or crane fly larv® infesting Strawberrv plants is 
ably treated on pages 9.5-98. The leather-jackets “commence their 
work of destruction by severing the leaf stems from the roots immedi¬ 
ately below the ground (why plant so deeply ?) thus killing off large 
numbers of otherwise healthy p’ants.” Rape cake is mentioned as\ 
remedy. 
The dreaded root-knot eelworm infesting Tomato and Cucumber roots 
next receives liberal treatment (pages 99- 108), and is verv interesting 
and disheartening. Experiments with such substances as “ magnesium 
sulphate, iron sulphate, tartaric acid, lead acetate, citric acid, sodium 
sulphite, sodium hyposulphite,sodium caustic, potassium sulphite, potas¬ 
sium permanganate, potassium chloride, potassium ferrocyanide, potassium 
sulphide, potassium sulphate, potassium caustic, potassium acetate, 
carbolic acid, and potassium cyanide,” at the rate of 1, 2, 3, and 
4 grammes to each pot were unsatisfactory, carbolic acid giving best 
revolts. “ Gaslime (fresh) up to 20 grammes, fresh caustic lime up 
to 20 grammes, tobacco powder up to 8 grammes,” were equally ineffectual 
in killing the pests. 
“ The plants in the potassium ferrocyanide were all killed, even the 
plant to which I only used 1 gramme to the 4^ lbs. (of soil). The 
plants in the gaslime were sickly at 12 grammes ; but the eelworm was 
not even checked with 20 grammes. Ail the other plants did well, and 
were not injured in the least. The only things effectual in checking the 
eelworm were carbolic acid and potassium cyanide, when 4 grammes to 
the 4i lbs. of soil were used. In these pots only the smallest trace of 
eelworm could be found, whereas the pots in which the other chemicals 
were used were a mass of knotted roots.” This is a very valuable record 
and is worth ten times the cost of the Report (Is. Cd.). The only thing 
recommendel is carbolic acid—33 ozs, to 15 cubic feet of soil, the acid 
being mixed with water to the extent of twenty times its bulk and 
then used, a water pot with a fine rose, thoroughly mixing the soil 
afterwards. 
The “ report” is replete with particulars of the experiments, and it 
will be noticed that no substance used as manure had any effect on the 
eelworm. This is an unfortunate feature in the case, there is a still 
worse—the sterilising of the soil by destroying the micro-organisms, 
to which it mainly owes its natural fertility. Carbolic acid is one of 
the most powerful disinfectants, a great microbe killer, and it is one of 
the best things for killing weeds on walks, yet poisons never ought to 
be used for such purposes where there are dogs or cats, as they get it on 
their fur. 
Diamondback moth caterpillars seem to have done very little 
damage to Turnips in 1893. This is made up for by the wasps, which 
opens in the Report with an engraving of the neat of tree wasp, after a 
sketch from an original specimen by Miss Ormerod, and the whole wasp 
family are capitally treated and illustrated on pages 111-140. Every¬ 
body will, or ought to know, all they need care to about wasps and 
hornets after reading the matter carefully and mastering the particulars. 
Willows are not forgotten. There are particulars of the attacks of 
the caterpillars of small chocolate-tip moth on Osiers in Ireland, also 
“Feeble prominent” moth caterpillars. The caterpillar is a queer 
looking creature, a zigzag-formed thing when disturbed on Osiers, it 
putting itself in an attitude of defence. Willow sawfly closes the 
“ seventeenth report,” except a first-rate index, which is equally valuable 
with the whole, and quite equal to, if not better than, any of its pre¬ 
decessors. It is published by Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent, 
and Co., Stationers’ .Hall Court, London.—G. Abbey. 
WOKK.foutheWeEK.. 
HARDY FRUIT GARDEN. 
Grafting- Fruit Trees.— The present time is the most suitable to 
carry on this operation, inasmuch as the sap is becoming active and 
powerful, which is of great importance in effecting a union of stock and 
scion. 
Tongue or 'Whip Grafting.— This style is used when stocks are 
of small diameter, such as the headed-back branches of young trees 
which have proved to be inferior varieties, and upon which it is desired 
to work some approved sort. It is also a suitable style for working 
seedling stocks, being largely practised as a safe, easy, and effectual 
method. 
Preparation of the Stocks .—As this method of grafting can only be 
usei on small or comparatively small stocks, it is not necessary to cut 
the latter down before the workman is ready to operate. In young trees 
shorten the branches to within 2 feet of their origin, making a short, 
clean, sloping cut at a desirable part of the wood where the bark is 
smooth. Next make a slanting cut upwards in the wood of the stock 
at a length of about 3 inches. The formation of the tongue is effected 
by a sloping cut inwards, beginning about an inch below the top. This 
incision is met by a vertical one from the higher part of the first 
sloping cut, which will detach a thin wedge-shaped portion of wood. 
The stock is then ready for the reception of the scion. 
Preparation of the Scions .—The scions having been selected of the 
same thickness as the stocks, must have a corresponding cut made 
downwards on one side, of exactly equal length to that upon the stocks. 
The scions should be healthy wood of last year’s growth cut some time 
back to ensure their having, when used, quite dormant buds. The 
central parts of such shoots are usually the best, therefore cut off the 
unrips ends and the bottom portion. The length of each scion may 
be 6 or 8 inches of straight ripe wood, with bold wood buds. Some 
growths, however, are longer jointed than others, and as it is desirable 
